In US college sports, a debate is raging between opponents and proponents of international players receiving scholarships and competing in collegiate sports. The BBC's Franz Strasser gathered the opinions of leading tennis coaches and officials.

Craig Tiley, Tournament Director, Australian Open

Tiley, who used to coach the successful men's team at the University of Illinois, made it a point to recruit local American players and says it is a bit of a stretch and not in the best interest of college tennis to have a team with all foreign players. He would like more coaches to focus on developing players and have less pressure to win.

"You have to be willing to have a down year as you develop. If more coaches do that then the sport really grows," says Tiley. "It is about aggressively promoting the matches and showcasing college tennis to the community."

"I don't buy the argument about there not being enough good American players. They may not be good now but you give them a great coaching environment and you can make those players great."

Jill Hultquist, women's tennis coach, University of Washington

Hultquist currently has six players from outside the US on her roster of eight and says she made a conscious decision to recruit foreign players as well as Americans. "It's hard to rebuild a team if you lose the top 20, 30 American players to the traditional powerhouse programmes each year."

Sensitive to the ongoing debate, she picks a few select American players each year and offers them scholarships first. If they don't take them she goes international.

"The coaching world is competitive and our jobs are on the line. So we are just looking to compete," says Hultquist, who points to the large number of scholarships available to female players each year. "If you work hard enough you should be able to succeed and get what you want."

Tim Cass, Associate Athletics Director, University of New Mexico

Cass, who has coached the men's tennis team at Texas A&M University for 10 years, says the mix of international students throughout American campuses adds great value and is positive for a team. But he feels strongly about limiting the number of international players and the number of scholarships they are awarded.

"I don't think that was the mission of college tennis to basically fill your team with internationals," says Cass, adding that universities are limiting the chance for Americans.

Universities are investing more money into their athletic programmes but also putting more pressure on winning, he argues. "It's a moral question to some degree. Is that the mission of your program to use your scholarship money in that way?"

Ben Belletto, men's tennis coach, Pomona College

Belletto coaches in a lower tier of collegiate tennis and has seen a trickle-down effect for a number of years. With international players taking an increasing number of scholarships in Divisions 1 and 2, he says more American players are forced to look at other options.

"Look at a school like Amherst and the quality of tennis players there. Five, 10 years ago that would have been unheard of."

"I'm sure some grow up wanting to play for Stanford and UCLA and not to have that option anymore is heartbreaking," says Belletto who cannot offer scholarships in Division 3. "Coaches want to win and they will do whatever they have to do."

Geoff MacDonald, women's tennis coach, Vanderbilt

For MacDonald the debate is mostly a fairness issue. He is not opposed to one or two international players but a whole team of international players doesn't feel right to him. He says Title IX law forced colleges to spend as much money on women's athletics and provide as many opportunities for them.

"I don't know if the intent of Title IX was for a European pro player to come here and take a scholarship away from an American kid who might not be as good."

It is not uncommon for MacDonald to encounter coaches who go strictly overseas and make friends at pro tournaments in Europe. "If we were handing out math scholarships we wouldn't go to Finland and get the best mathematicians. Because this is competitive people are willing to go all over the world."

Rodney Harmon, former USTA men's tennis director

Harmon sees a tremendous opportunity for young American players to play against top players from all over the world on a college level and it helps them in preparation for the game on a pro level.

He knows that there is a problem for Americans who are lower ranked and who don't get the scholarships that they used to.

"We have to prepare our American players earlier and work on the skill sets they need to get to college," says Harmon who now coaches at a club in Florida. "College tennis would not be nearly as good with just American players."

Every coach wants as many American players as they can get, he says. "But to keep your job you have to win."

Tony Minnis, men's tennis coach, Louisiana State

The phenomenon of internationals playing college tennis in the US has been going on for a while, but increased over the last few years, says Minnis, who has coached great international players over the years but tried to make it a point to recruit some American kids.

"I got an opportunity and a very solid career and I wouldn't be where I am if I didn't have the chance to play collegiate tennis," says Minnis. "It has raised the level of college tennis but it has gotten to a point where schools say we are only going to recruit internationally."

Schools and coaches should at least attempt to get American players, he says, and keep the winning-now mentality in perspective.

Mike Lancaster, owner athleticscholarships.net

Lancaster, who runs a sports recruiting service, says tennis has the most international appeal out of all the NCAA sports. "There is a real move with European players in the last 10 years. When they go back home they tell their friends and the word spreads quickly."

Over 100 players contact his site every day for all sports. Only the athletes pay for the service, coaches receive the information for free.

"If you are a college tennis coach and you want to have a strong team, it's much easier to recruit international players than it is to just build a team with American players."

Of the highlighted excerpts I am most offended by Hultquist. She is clearly rationalizing her decisions and rather than do the hard work to recruit American talent is satisfied moving to foreign talent once the top 10 players surprisingly decide not to come to Washington.

Several years ago at the winter nationals, there was a seminar by a recruiting agency, which it's keynote speaker was a former men's coach from a Big 10 school. Part of his speech was why he personally recruited foreigner players.
His reasons
-older, more mature
-didn't have to hold their hands
-didn't have to deal with the parents
-had professional experience
-worked harder

IMO, coaches have become lazy, not coaching but just managing their teams.

Of the highlighted excerpts I am most offended by Hultquist. She is clearly rationalizing her decisions and rather than do the hard work to recruit American talent is satisfied moving to foreign talent once the top 10 players surprisingly decide not to come to Washington.

Click to expand...

Yeah that one kind of jumped out a meet to. Only top 20 or 30 player are acceptable. But now its going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy - next year when she goes to recruit a top 10 US players she is going to have to answer question like - does anyone else on the team speak English ? Will I be the only freshman on the team not old enough to drink ? Joking aside, she is not creating an environment that is going to attract top 30 players.

Of the highlighted excerpts I am most offended by Hultquist. She is clearly rationalizing her decisions and rather than do the hard work to recruit American talent is satisfied moving to foreign talent once the top 10 players surprisingly decide not to come to Washington.

Click to expand...

Really so the coach should take players then that guarantee that the team finishes last every year in the Pac-12 or never have a chance to be competitive against Stanford, USC, UCLA, etc... I also guarantee you would careless if she got fired because her team could not compete year in and year out.
Coaches are paid to win so if she can not get a Top 50 or so girl to come play then she must look for the best talent out there regardless of nationality.

I think Jeff Macdonalds comments are spot on. I think there is a real difference in this issue between the Men and the Women scholarships. I am from Hawaii an my daughter plays at Patsy Mink Regional Park. I think Patsy Mink would be rolling in her grave if she knew that at our public university in Hawaii the Womens team is 80% foreigners.

J.
Coaches are paid to win so if she can not get a Top 50 or so girl to come play then she must look for the best talent out there regardless of nationality.[/QUOTE said:

That's not the only thing they are paid to do. This is not the NFL, or even SEC football. They are paid to be coaches and all that entails - developing players, developing students. Tennis is not a money making sport, win or lose. If that the only thing her AD is judging her on than that's the real issue. The AD sets the direction, what is acceptable and how her success or failure is judged.

I don't have a problem with some foreign students per se, maybe a couple per team, but right now its completely out of hand.

There is no debate. NCAA should ban this practice. It is simply unfair and stupid for American taxpayers to support foreign players over their own children. It also hurts the tennis development of American pre-teens and teens. With less chance for a college scholarship there are fewer US teens that can see the value in tennis training.

ok so fine then ban all International players from "Public" Universities, allow the Privates to do what they want since there is no tax dollars being spent on their Athletic teams and education.
All fixed so everyone can get off Baylor, Vanderbilt, and other privates.

Prediction: This thread will likely go on for 20 pages with nothing being said that was not already said in other threads on the subject. Even points that were painstakingly disproven in past threads (e.g. concerning the details of how sports are funded) will be confidently posted again, often by the same people who saw their points refuted previously.

Prediction: This thread will likely go on for 20 pages with nothing being said that was not already said in other threads on the subject. Even points that were painstakingly disproven in past threads (e.g. concerning the details of how sports are funded) will be confidently posted again, often by the same people who saw their points refuted previously.

Click to expand...

That could be said about 90% of the topics under discussion at any given time..may as well shut down the forum..everything's already been discussed..

Really so the coach should take players then that guarantee that the team finishes last every year in the Pac-12 or never have a chance to be competitive against Stanford, USC, UCLA, etc... I also guarantee you would careless if she got fired because her team could not compete year in and year out.
Coaches are paid to win so if she can not get a Top 50 or so girl to come play then she must look for the best talent out there regardless of nationality.

Click to expand...

Yikes. Did you respond to anything I actually said or just your inferences? I said she sounds like she is rationalizing and enabling her desire to not find and recruit great American players who may be able to help her program but don't reside in the five star strata. They are certainly out there but she obviously prefers to recruit a few Americans out of her league, get rejected and go international.

Prediction: This thread will likely go on for 20 pages with nothing being said that was not already said in other threads on the subject. Even points that were painstakingly disproven in past threads (e.g. concerning the details of how sports are funded) will be confidently posted again, often by the same people who saw their points refuted previously.

Click to expand...

Spot on. And the fact that this was re-started in the Junior forum instead of in the College forum speaks volumes.

EDIT: Thanks to mods for moving this from the Junior forum to the College forum

No issue with foreign competition. Big issue with tax dollars going to foreigners. Why not welcome any foreign player who can help the team, but on their own dime, not the public dole. Or even limiting foreign scholarships to 50%? I understand that private colleges would have a big advantage, but that doesn't mean we should just accept it. Sometimes the right thing is detrimental, but you do it anyway.

No issue with foreign competition. Big issue with tax dollars going to foreigners. Why not welcome any foreign player who can help the team, but on their own dime, not the public dole. Or even limiting foreign scholarships to 50%? I understand that private colleges would have a big advantage, but that doesn't mean we should just accept it. Sometimes the right thing is detrimental, but you do it anyway.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about federal tax money or state? How does federal support to colleges get into athletic scholarships?

Amen to that, but it is pretty tough to get someone to fall on the sword while the other 300 sit back and watch you bleed.

If folks truly want a school to stop or limit recruiting foreigners to their school, they need to get out their checkbooks. Write a multi-million dollar endowment check to your college that will fund scholarships to the tennis program with a stipulation that the scholarships can only be used for domestically born tennis athletes. Probably in the neighborhood of $5,208,333 is all it would take...figuring 6% interest in perpetuity would yield $312,500 per year. Avg year of a scholarship might be 25k per year (25k x 12.5 = 312,500)

That's probably the only way it would truly get changed...outside funding of the program. If the school doesn't have to worry about paying 4.5 men & 8 women's scholarships every year, they probably won't care if the team stinks or not.

Prediction: This thread will likely go on for 20 pages with nothing being said that was not already said in other threads on the subject. Even points that were painstakingly disproven in past threads (e.g. concerning the details of how sports are funded) will be confidently posted again, often by the same people who saw their points refuted previously.

Click to expand...

And then on the 21st page, there are going to be 2 people that really don't see eye to eye, they are going to start throwing insults. One's going to call the other a racist. The other is going to call the first one something that needs to be hidden by ****'s. And then the thread will be deleted.

Two days later, another thread with the same subject heading will be started.

And then on the 21st page, there are going to be 2 people that really don't see eye to eye, they are going to start throwing insults. One's going to call the other a racist. The other is going to call the first one something that needs to be hidden by ****'s. And then the thread will be deleted.

Two days later, another thread with the same subject heading will be started.

Click to expand...

A subject that won't go away....

The original thread was started by someone who opposed the large percentage of foreigners in college tennis.

The thread was then swamped with American parents of tennis juniors ( myself), American tennis juniors, college tennis fans, foreigners who played college tennis, Americans who played college tennis, college coaches and yes, foreign recruiters.

Everyone has something at stake and so the battle becomes heated.....

But, the level of vitriol towards the end was off the charts, with comments that folks were racist and xenophobic
if they were opposed to foreigners on a state school tennis team......

So, perhaps that was the end goal of some posters which was to push the thread off the board.....

Yes, but not everyone argues from the selfish perspective based on what he has at stake. Some of us just try to figure out what is true and right.

I have two sons. Older one played some college soccer, but tennis was just a second sport. Out of college now. Younger son has been recovering from injuries for 2.5 years, just starting to play again. He hopes to get on an upward path in terms of TRN rankings when he is able to play tournaments again, but he will be trying to sell college coaches on his potential, not on his ranking at the time that recruitment decisions are made, because he will likely not have enough time to get the ranking up to a really high level. That will be a tough sell. Back before the recruiting of foreign players, he might have fared better. Today's colleges that recruit 5-star players used to recruit the equivalent of 4-star players, and today's 4-star colleges used to recruit the equivalent of 3-stars, etc. He would have had a better chance back then.

So, why do I not oppose offering scholarships to foreign recruits? Because I think it strengthens college tennis, because I think that our kids need to learn to compete, because many kids report that developing a friendship on the college team with some guy from Holland or Germany was a great experience, and various other reasons. Most or all of these reasons might never affect my son in a positive way.

In the post-modern age, most people don't believe in truth any more, only self interest. They assume that everyone is just arguing out of self interest. My son has never played a national tournament and likely never will, yet I examine the threads about USTA changes to national tournaments with great interest, from the perspective of, "Will this be good or bad for American tennis?" Sometimes a comment will draw a response along the lines of, "So, your kid is probably one who will easily get into the new smaller draws, and you don't care about the rest of us, right?" Many people today cannot conceive of anyone simply seeking the good and the true. Then, when my honest opinion does coincide with my self interests (e.g. I think the legal interpretations of Title IX are a travesty, and I have two sons and no daughters), people think they have discovered your motivation. Aha! Of course you are arguing that way!

In an earlier era, people were encouraged to discuss and debate and try to get closer to the truth. Today, the schools don't have real classroom discussion of that sort very much. They have "bull sessions" where "every person's opinion is equally valuable." Just spout off your ignorance and emotion and the teacher is supposed to "validate you" with some positive feedback. As a result, no one can understand the kid who bothers to strenuously disagree with some statement that was made. The only motive they can think of is that he must be trying to make that other kid look bad in front of the teacher and the whole class. Hence, today, every disagreement is viewed as a sign of personal animosity. If you think that Nadal is the GOAT, then you are a "Federer hater," and if you think that Federer is the GOAT, you are a "Nadal hater." If you think that the second-team quarterback should be starting for your local pro football team, you are a "hater" of the starting quarterback. And so on.

While my son would likely be better off without so much foreign competition for dollars, I oppose trying to limit the foreign spots on each team. Yet, when fellow defenders of the same position claim that no tax dollars ever find their way into the athletic department, I point out that this is not true. Wait -- why did I do that? Which side am I on, anyway? Isn't that what these arguments are all about, taking sides and embracing every argument that favors your side even when it does not sound true, and rejecting every counter-argument instead of learning something from it?

I think this thread would be much more civil, if you just drop the "my tax dollars support these foreigners" meme.

In most big time athletic institutions, the money for the entire athletic department comes from donations and revenue from football and basketball. And as many have pointed out, men's teams don't even have that many scholarships to dole out.

You can debate whether or not NCAA should limit foreign scholarships, but using "tax dollar" argument is just disingenuous.

I think this thread would be much more civil, if you just drop the "my tax dollars support these foreigners" meme.

In most big time athletic institutions, the money for the entire athletic department comes from donations and revenue from football and basketball. And as many have pointed out, men's teams don't even have that many scholarships to dole out.

You can debate whether or not NCAA should limit foreign scholarships, but using "tax dollar" argument is just disingenuous.

Click to expand...

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Gameboy!

Even if you and I are misguided, well, the US foreign aid budget is somewhere in the $40+ billion range. Seems there could be a lot more done for little Johnny and Janey with that money than the amount of federal tax money that finds its way into scholarships for foreign college tennis players

What about the other 90% of schools that offer scholarships then ? Why is the discussion only limited to "big time" athletic institutions? There are more scholarships available from non-BCS Div I schools and DIV II. Most of these schools athletic programs run at a deficit and borrow money from there general fund(which they never pay back). In addition, almost 99% of the schools in the US receives federal funding - either directly, in most cases, indirectly, because the tuition money they receive from student is in part from federal grants and student loans subsidized by tax payers.

You can debate whether or not NCAA should limit foreign scholarships, but using "tax dollar" argument is just disingenuous.

Click to expand...

Good way to discuss, first step: impune the motives of anyone who disagrees with you. No its not's disingenuous at all. If the school receives any federal funding, which as I stated above, they almost all do, than tax dollars are going to their athletic program. They can set up all the 'special funds' and accounting chicanery they want in order to say that X doesn't pay for Y, Z pays for Y, but at the end of the day, it chicanery, you can't take water out of half a glass.

If you want to talk about scholarships in Div II or III schools, then at least limit your conversations to those schools (and I don't think highly ranked kids are having problems getting into Div 2 or 3 programs).

From what I have seen, most of the talks have been centered around BCS programs which means there are no tax dollars involved.

I think the discussion was about athletic scholarships, which means DIV I and DIV II, not DIV III. I don't think most people would have assumed we were just talking about BCS programs. And we will have to agree to disagree about there being tax dollars involved in BCS scholarships, but do me the small favor of not accusing me of being disingenuous and I'll do the same for your. Thats the way to keep the conversation civil.

Today's colleges that recruit 5-star players used to recruit the equivalent of 4-star players, and today's 4-star colleges used to recruit the equivalent of 3-stars, etc. He would have had a better chance back then.

So, why do I not oppose offering scholarships to foreign recruits? Because I think it strengthens college tennis, because I think that our kids need to learn to compete?

Click to expand...

What is the role of American college tennis?

Is it to "compete" among all college age tennis players in the world, or
is it the responsibility of college tennis to prepare them for the professional game?

Neither, starting with kindergarten, school athletics is to help build strong bodies, so that we have strong minds.

That is nice a article from USA Today. Lots of information and stats available directly on line!

Here are some examples (picked randomly mostly from major state institutions):

University of Michigan (my alma mater)
Operating Revenue: $107 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

University of Illinois
Operating Revenue: $97 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Alabama
Operating Revenue: $130 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

California
Operating Revenue: $69 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Cincinnati (cited in the report)
Operating Revenue: $41 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Georgia
Operating Revenue: $90 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Texas A&M: $82 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

As you can see there are $0 tax dollars going to "foreign scholarships". Other than Cincinnati, these schools didn't even have "direct institutional contribution". Even that is coming from mostly school endowment and tuitions. But to argue that that is your tax dollar is at work IS disingenuous.

That is nice a article from USA Today. Lots of information and stats available directly on line!

Here are some examples (picked randomly mostly from major state institutions):

University of Michigan (my alma mater)
Operating Revenue: $107 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

University of Illinois
Operating Revenue: $97 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Alabama
Operating Revenue: $130 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

California
Operating Revenue: $69 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Cincinnati (cited in the report)
Operating Revenue: $41 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Georgia
Operating Revenue: $90 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Texas A&M: $82 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

As you can see there are $0 tax dollars going to "foreign scholarships". Other than Cincinnati, these schools didn't even have "direct institutional contribution". Even that is coming from mostly school endowment and tuitions. But to argue that that is your tax dollar is at work IS disingenuous.

Nice random cherry picking. Amazing how you only first narrowed your list to major state institutions before randomly picking. What about the other 300 schools ? Oh, I forgot, you are limiting the discussion to top BCS schools. And you calling me disingenuous ?

More importantly, if you want to talk about disingenuous, you are throwing out straw man arguments and then shooting them down : I never said tax revenues go to directly fund scholarships. The issue is the indirect funding that makes the tennis and other athletic programs possible in the first place. What I am saying is that tax payer funding and subsidies go directly and indirectly to those schools and their athletic programs, and therefore direct and indirect affects their scholarship program, and that makes the public funding relevant. Those tennis players are working out in weight rooms and playing on courts that were not paid for with private donations, they were probably built using taxpayer funded tax-exempt bonds. Heck, most of the revenue the universities receive is from government backed student loans and grants.

Maybe the S Carolina government and legislature don't see the portion of $7,000 that is going for foreign tennis scholarships at Winthrop as being a big issue. I don't know, I'm not familiar with S Carolina politics.

PS: I know the word "disingenuous" is not a compliment, but I never thought of it as being an insult or constituting uncivil dialogue. Maybe someone will use the d-word back at me for this!

OK, so at least we have narrowed the problem. We have established that big athletic programs with surplus revenues can fund foreign players as much as they desire without any tax payer dollars.

This eliminates the majority of BCS schools. So we are left with smaller Div 1 and Div 2 and 3 schools.

At that point, shouldn't we talk about why we have scholarships at all when they cannot finance themselves? What does the school get out of it? At least with football and basketball, you can argue that they raise the school's profile and generate donations from alums. But you certainly cannot say that about tennis programs.

If you want to talk about wasting taxpayer dollars, why are we paying for tennis at all? Tennis is not revenue neutral and not too many students on the campus probably knows that the tennis team even exists. What purpose does it serve? If you want to talk about taxes, let's just argue for getting rid of tennis scholarship all together.

That would probably solve both problems in one sweep as without the scholarship dollars, you won't have foreign players coming over and you will have more spots for the local kids who want to play.

Let's not single out the foreign players. Just get rid of the system all together.

What I am saying is that tax payer funding and subsidies go directly and indirectly to those schools and their athletic programs, and therefore direct and indirect affects their scholarship program, and that makes the public funding relevant. Those tennis players are working out in weight rooms and playing on courts that were not paid for with private donations, they were probably built using taxpayer funded tax-exempt bonds.

Click to expand...

My comment is that tuition dollars don't pay for these things either.

Would you prevent out-of-state and foreign tuition-paying students from using these facilities for intramurals and recreation, since their families didn't fund the bond issues? (I guess taxpayer funded facilities include classrooms too, no?)

What about US citizen/out-of-state athletes? No athletic scholarships for them and no use of the facilities since their families did not fund those tax-exempt bonds either?

You think Winthrop athletics is self-sufficent? Based on what revenue source?
Ticket sales? TV rights? No way.

Check again. Most of their support is from:
Student fees 47% and
Direct institutional support 25.67% (the university's general budget based on taxes and tuition)
Direct state support means a check from the state directly to the athletic department. Rarely is ever done. Usually the state gives to the University who passes some to the athletic department. I worked for a univeristy for several years.

Same is true for 95% of all NCCA athletic departments. Anytime a school generates big revenue from football is mostly goes to pay higher salaries to the football coaches and staff and higher travel expenses (bowl games). Not that much of a cash cow. Tennis still get subsidized.

You think Winthrop athletics is self-sufficent? Based on what revenue source?
Ticket sales? TV rights? No way.

Check again. Most of their support is from:
Student fees 47% and
Direct institutional support 25.67% (the university's general budget based on taxes and tuition)
Direct state support means a check from the state directly to the athletic department. Rarely is ever done. Usually the state gives to the University who passes some to the athletic department. I worked for a univeristy for several years.

Same is true for 95% of all NCCA athletic departments. Anytime a school generates big revenue from football is mostly goes to pay higher salaries to the football coaches and staff and higher travel expenses (bowl games). Not that much of a cash cow. Tennis still get subsidized.

Click to expand...

Honest. This is not false modesty or disingenuity. Why do you think the governor, legislature, and ultimately the voters of S Carolina are allowing their tax dollars to be used for scholarships for tennis players who do not hold US passports?

Would you prevent out-of-state and foreign tuition-paying students from using these facilities for intramurals and recreation, since their families didn't fund the bond issues? (I guess taxpayer funded facilities include classrooms too, no?)

What about US citizen/out-of-state athletes? No athletic scholarships for them and no use of the facilities since their families did not fund those tax-exempt bonds either?

Click to expand...

That's why at state institutions, out of state and international students generally pay a higher tuition, unless there is a reciprocity agreement in place.

Maybe if we had a reciprocity program in place with foreign universities so that for every tennis scholarship we give there's they give one to ours..oh, never mind, they don't have tennis scholarships...

Honest. This is not false modesty or disingenuity. Why do you think the governor, legislature, and ultimately the voters of S Carolina are allowing their tax dollars to be used for scholarships for tennis players who do not hold US passports?

That's why at state institutions, out of state and international students generally pay a higher tuition, unless there is a reciprocity agreement in place.

Maybe if we had a reciprocity program in place with foreign universities so that for every tennis scholarship we give there's they give one to ours..oh, never mind, they don't have tennis scholarships...

Click to expand...

Yeah..........but............I don't think the out-of-state tuition premium is used to fund capital projects.

You are probably not going to like this story. I am aware that some State schools offer things called "Regional Scholarships". Full tuition in the examples I know about. Nothing to do with athletics. Purpose is to attract students from other (generally distant) states to enroll and provide diversity.

There goes scholarship money that could have been used for in-state kids! But I guess the State politicians and school administrators think it is worthwhile

Yeah..........but............I don't think the out-of-state tuition premium is used to fund capital projects.

You are probably not going to like this story. I am aware that some State schools offer things called "Regional Scholarships". Full tuition in the examples I know about. Nothing to do with athletics. Purpose is to attract students from other (generally distant) states to enroll and provide diversity.

There goes scholarship money that could have been used for in-state kids! But I guess the State politicians and school administrators think it is worthwhile

Click to expand...

I have no problem with that at all. Again, there are reciprocity agreements in place and for every kid your state school brings in from out of state, there usually an opportunity for a child from you school to go to another state, so it more or less evens out. Not so with tennis scholarships. Half the college tennis teams in Europe are not made up of Americans on scholarship.

I never said ban foreign all students, but limits are justifiable. When teams have none or just a token American on them, how is that diversity ?